Navigate:

Mitt Romney aide: Need more tax revenue

Mitt Romney’s top economic adviser continued his post-election about-face on Monday, pushing for raising more tax revenue from the rich as a way to start paying down the federal deficit.

“Obviously, we would be better in my view if we didn’t raise taxes on anyone and we did everything on the spending side,” Glenn Hubbard, the dean of Columbia’s business school, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “We just had an election. We’re going to have to have some compromise. And I think step one is figure out how to raise some revenue without killing the economy.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

Hubbard said revenue should only come in the form of eliminating deductions, not by increasing tax rates, as President Barack Obama has suggested. He also said that solving the nation’s deficit problem will require more than upper-class tax hikes.

“If you raise every tax on the rich that the president has proposed, it’s about 1 percent of GDP,” Hubbard said. “But our long-term problems are more like 10 percent of GDP. And we know from people who have studied fiscal consolidations are really all about spending cuts.”

SurfingUSA # 2: you might have made your point with a quick summary of all these diatribes but using enormous amounts of space to show that you've gotten passionate about the housing angle really reduces the impact.

Sure, lax housing approvals coupled with Wall Street greed-upon-greed created a mess, but it's only part of the story. The continuous reduction of corporate tax receipts since the mid-90s, driven by Gramm and jailbait-DeLay, cut into receipts. The continuous exporting of jobs since the late 90s reduced tax receipts, increased unemployment costs, and reduced spending within our economy. Top it all with the wars-on-a-credit-card.

Sure, housing's been a contributor and is slow to come back - afterall, it's the most expensive buy that most people make. But these other outgrowths of the failed "trickle down" ideology are equally to blame.

"If you raise every tax on the rich that the president has proposed, it’s about 1 percent of GDP,” Hubbard said. “But our long-term problems are more like 10 percent of GDP."

Yeah, ok, then so instead of 1 year higher taxes, try 10 years. Problem solved, by his own admission! OF COURSE 1 YEAR OF HIGHER TAXES ISN'T GOING PAY OFF THE DEBT. Neither will LOWERING TAXES TO 0.1% for capital earnings for only 1 year, either! Can we stop fighting over this based on that premise?

DO YOUR OWN MATH! 1 YEAR = 1% GPD, so 10 YEARS = 10% GDP! The rich can afford 10 years of slightly higher taxes. We had years on years of taxes at 90% on the rich, they can take this. After that, then take it back down. Clinton didn't make a surplus in 1 year.

There is no evidence that tax cuts for the rich have increased economic growth and even the GOP cannot name the number of jobs that the 11-year Bush tax cuts have create yet are the single biggest conrtributor to our Nation Debt behind the 20+ years of combined Bush-Cheney wars based upon lies, arrogance, and greed; the GOP-Phil Gramm-enabled subprime mortage Wall St. rich bankster fraud that took $15 trillion from Americans' household wealth; along with the collapsed housing industry/market that has brought the US out of previous recessions; the five million manufacturing jobs shipped offshore under Bush-Cheney along with thousands of tax-dodging corporate assets that deprive the US of $130 billion annually; and of course the ongoing effects of the Bush Great Recession.

Recall that more jobs were created under Clinton (23 million) with the higher tax rates that the President and recommended we return to. From 1979-2006, incomes for the top one percent went up 275% while the Middle Class declined by 25% and wages stagnated for the 99%. The rich have fared well before and after the Bush Great Recession and will still fare well even with a return to a higher tax rate or doing away with the GOP-created tax loopholes for the rich like "carried interest" or lowered dividend rates that made rich folks like Romney even richer.

Nice spin....devoid of reality though. Blaming dems/liberals for a bubble that occurred solely under a government controlled ENTIRELY by Republicans from 2003 to 2006, the time during which the private market went from writing less than 20% of subprimes to over 80%. Clinton and Carter were long gone when private sector lenders approved no money down, no document loans in an attempt to write as many loans as quickly as they could, all while Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.

A private sector, by the way, that wasn't even subject to the 'liberal ' law you pretend that FORCED banks to lend to minorities (no such law exists on the books to force ONE bank to lend to ONE unworthy borrower....they just have to prove they are not discriminating based on location but considering the individual's ability to pay rather than where they live). You see, private lenders weren't subject to the rules of the CRA...only banks.

You know who else thought subprime lending 'started off as a good idea'? George W Bush, who spoke of an ownership society and who provided over the subprime debacle without lifting a finger to stop it, because he....and his fellow in control Congress members....knew that home refinancing was fueling an otherwise anemic economy.

So blaming Democrats who were long out of office (Clinton and Carter), or dems in office but in minority positions on their respective banking committees (Frank and Dodd), is just refusing to take responsibility for a debacle that both inflated and burst during a period of time when they were in complete charge of the government.

Think of it this way......if you leave your house unlocked (repealing Glass Steagal), and someone comes along and steals everything in your house (predatory private sector subprime lenders), you might have been unwise in YOUR decision, but it's the crooks who are going to jail. So while Clinton may have signed a Republican backed bill, (Gramm Leach Bliley act.....all three backers of this bill were Repubs) it was Republicans who allowed all your stuff to be stolen.

"There is no evidence that tax cuts for the rich have increased economic growth...."

No only is there NOT evidence of this, but there is evidence of the opposite. A report just came out that destroys the myth of trickle down economics and minority leader McConnell moved quickly to have it stricken from the Senate record. He couldn't erase all proof of such a study though.

Why would Romney pick some economist from a liberal University to guide him? Romney's skills have fallen since he ran the Olympics He could have easily chosen Walter E. Williams and/or Thomas Sowell to guide him, but he chose a loser.

I hear the liberals scream that we were just fine under the tax rates when Clinton was president. That would be fine if we also spent as much as we did under Clinton. The republicans should say we will agree to the tax hikes if, and only if, spending is reduced to Clinton era spending.

The only exception would be for the democrats to go first. Too many times have republicans agreed to tax hikes when promised spending cuts. The democrats renege on their promise every single time. It happened under Reagan. And all that got republicans was the ability of democrats to truthfully say that Reagan raised taxes.

Truthfully, you could tax the high earners at 100% and we wouldn't even put a dent in the deficit. The government does not have a revenue problem. They have a spending problem.

I'm fine with eliminating all tax deducitons for people who make over 1 million dollars per year and keeping the rate the same.

If all rich people pay a flat tax of 35% with zero deductions that will probably raise revenue by 2 or 3 times the amount we'd get from just raising their rate 4% to 39% and allowing them to keep their deductions.

I hear the liberals scream that we were just fine under the tax rates when Clinton was president. That would be fine if we also spent as much as we did under Clinton. The republicans should say we will agree to the tax hikes if, and only if, spending is reduced to Clinton era spending.

The only exception would be for the democrats to go first. Too many times have republicans agreed to tax hikes when promised spending cuts. The democrats renege on their promise every single time. It happened under Reagan. And all that got republicans was the ability of democrats to truthfully say that Reagan raised taxes.

Do you not remember that Republicans increased spending to what it is today? Our "spending problem" is because of Republicans.

When Clinton left the budget was balanced. When Bush left the economy was a wreck and we had TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS!

You (as a Republican voter) caused this problem. You accept the tax increases because that's your punishment for being a retard and because you LOST the election.

Then afterward we'll talk about spending cuts.

Also reagan lowered taxes on the wealthy and raised them on the poor. That's what Republicans do and that's why Democrats attacked him for raising taxes. He lowered taxes by a huge amount and then tried to cut spending by screwing the poor out of social programs just like the GOP always does.